Russia and Ukraine

[The Grand Nudger]

For whatever reason, the bradley has been the better anti tank performer. I think there's a strong rationale for sending ukraine a tank killer (and a simpler vehicle, crewed by infantry) over a tank. Ideally, they get both - though I wouldn't pick the abrams, if putin kept giving me tickets to the candystore.

[Deesse23]

...and then had to rebuild their culture and mentality which Russians had a part in

I dont think so.
1/5 Germans are eastern Germans. The last russian troops left Germany more than 30y ago. Any German who consciously experienced russian occupation is at least 40-50 now.
These two facts together probably lead to 1/10 Germans today who ever experienced russian occupation and its ramifications.

So it is probably very psychologically hard to send tanks that will fight against them. It's almost like encountering the old daemon that they had with Russia.

Its less about Russia and more about getting directly involved in active wars with german equipment playing a central part, which Leo-IIs of course would be.

[Thumpalumpacus]

For whatever reason, the bradley has been the better anti tank performer.  I think there's a strong rationale for sending ukraine a tank killer (and a simpler vehicle, crewed by infantry) over a tank.  Ideally, they get both - though I wouldn't pick the abrams, if putin kept giving me tickets to the candystore.

It's a fuel-guzzler, to be sure (on the other hand, it can use a variety of fuels).

No matter which tank they go with -- and the Brits re already sending a squadron of Challenger IIs -- there will be training slowdowns due to both increased software demands and the addition of a loader position (which in the Chal II means loading 2-pc ammo, the M1 having 1-pc). The LeClerc might be as useful given that it's built in metric, meaning less conversion issues, plus it's got an autoloader, which won't require the creation of another MOS. But Macron seems as diffident as the rest about sending MBTs.

The one thing any MBT will have over the Bradley is AT reloads, given that the Bradley's anti-tank capability is ATGM-based and limited to, iirc, eight missiles. Chal II has 50 shots aboard, 40 rounds for the M1A1, and 42 for the Leo II. LeClerc, at 22, sits above the Brad but below the other tanks. Of course, guided ATGMs may well provide more accuracy and therefore hit-ratio.

No matter which MBTs are sent, training will be lengthy, I suspect, with the better software and systems being the main bottleneck -- but I've been wrong before, and Ukrainian soldiers seem highly motivated to learn quickly.

ETA:

This article details some of the arguments over supplying said tanks: https://mickryan.substack.com/p/the-great-tank-debate

[Leonardo17]

One very unreasonable argument I keep hearing to Justify Russia's invasion is the comparison between Nukes being deployed in Ukraine to Nukes being deployed in Cuba. This misses the fact that the only reason Ukraine would agree to have nukes is if they felt threatened by Russia the same as Cuba wanted Nukes to prevent US hostilities. I also find it funny you never hear Russia say it would be alright for say Poland to invade Russia because they felt threatened by Russia's Nuclear arsenal. It's like Russia forgets that in eastern Europe it's the one whose an existential threat to its neighbors by its own logic. Also if NATO had evil plans to deploy Nukes near Russia's border they don't need Ukraine they could deploy missiles from Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania but right now those countries have no Nukes so is NATO just dumb that they would wait to admit Ukraine before "threatening Russia rather then take advantage of already existing members? This makes zero sense.

+ Ukraine was a Nuclear power in 1991 when it left the Soviet Union. They decided to give up their nuclear arsenal and in return, Russia had agreed to be one of the guarantors of Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

[Leonardo17]

The Last load of bull from Russian defenders is the absurd idea that Ukraine was promoting the ethnic cleansing of Russians in Ukraine

This is totally bunk 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.100...22-09258-5

https://www.e-ir.info/2020/12/08/russian...tionalism/

+ During the Holodomor in 1932-1933, it was 5 million Ukrainians who had died due to Stalin’s collectivization polities.
 
The Far-right accusation (and the NATO / Nuclear accusations) are just lies. Today the same Kremlin is said to be fighting against LGBTQ Propaganda (Which is absurd because there is not LGBTQ propaganda, LGBTQ is not a political ideology, it’s a phenomenon based humans rights movement). These are just some scapegoats or targets that are given to a population that is poor and suffering and is being increasingly oppressed by a dictatorial regime. So the propaganda is presenting Putin as a new “man of steel” who is fighting the long gone Nazi Germany once again. Who is in reality nothing but a Don Quixote Fighting against Windmills (event described in a 17th century Spanish Epic Novel by Cervantes).

[Leonardo17]

Looks like tanks are going to shipped, either with or without Germany's approval. We Americans should have done so already, even a bone-stock M-1 is a T-72 killer. Bravo Poland if they take the leap to send Leo IIs.

They will need one or two hundred of these tanks to make a real difference. Right now they are holding the Russians on the front. But the casualties are very high on both sides.
 
I would give them fighter jets too. The Russians will not use nuclear weapons.

[Leonardo17]

Right now another conference is happening in Ramstein.
Zelensky was in an interview on German television yesterday, saying "You can keep talking (about tanks) for 6 more months. Here, people are dying. Our people are dying. If you have tanks, please give them to us."

US refuses to ship M-1ses, citing maintenance issues n stuff as reasonf for not doing so.

Krauss Maffei says its willing and able to refurbish Leo-IIs. 20 this year, some dozen more in the next 20 months. Another supplier is offerign to refurbish Leo-I, bought from Oman. Thes tanks would be availiable on very short notice.

Our reasoning for not shipping Abrams also included that "they run on jet fuel" -- which is asinine, because 1) those tanks are multifuel and 2) jet fuel is one of the most easily refined POLs, barely above kerosene in the fractionation process. This is political cowardice on the part of the Biden administration, in my view.

Another possibility might be to have a certain cohesion in military material. Maybe they don’t want a Ukrainian army with 20 different types of assault tanks which have all a different way of working and require a different type of training + logistical support. SO it looks like it will be Leopards instead of Abrams Thanks.   

[Leonardo17]

...and then had to rebuild their culture and mentality which Russians had a part in

I dont think so.
1/5 Germans are eastern Germans. The last russian troops left Germany more than 30y ago. Any German who consciously experienced russian occupation is at least 40-50 now.
These two facts together probably lead to 1/10 Germans today who ever experienced russian occupation and its ramifications.

So it is probably very psychologically hard to send tanks that will fight against them. It's almost like encountering the old daemon that they had with Russia.

Its less about Russia and more about getting directly involved in active wars with german equipment playing a central part, which Leo-IIs of course would be.

Germans like most European nations have become smaller military forces after 1960’s. This is why they always look to their elder brother (you) before undertaking major military actions. This is slowly changing since the Trump Era. All European countries are boosting their military capacities and are working toward some sort of European military alliance.
 
So Sholz is a little shy. But I think he will give those thanks in the coming days.   

[Deesse23]

I dont think so.
1/5 Germans are eastern Germans. The last russian troops left Germany more than 30y ago. Any German who consciously experienced russian occupation is at least 40-50 now.
These two facts together probably lead to 1/10 Germans today who ever experienced russian occupation and its ramifications.


Its less about Russia and more about getting directly involved in active wars with german equipment playing a central part, which Leo-IIs of course would be.

Germans like most European nations have become smaller military forces after 1960’s. This is why they always look to their elder brother (you) before undertaking major military actions. This is slowly changing since the Trump Era. All European countries are boosting their military capacities and are working toward some sort of European military alliance.
 
So Sholz is a little shy. But I think he will give those thanks in the coming days.   

He is facing ever increasing pressure internally, even within his own coalition. The suppliers like Krauss-Maffei have indicated as well that they are reading and willing (K-M CEO):"We can not just produce military weapons and wait for potential orders from potential customers (= Scholz, or approved by Scholz). Its illegal even".
The ball is definitely on Scholz´ court.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Our reasoning for not shipping Abrams also included that "they run on jet fuel" -- which is asinine, because 1) those tanks are multifuel and 2) jet fuel is one of the most easily refined POLs, barely above kerosene in the fractionation process. This is political cowardice on the part of the Biden administration, in my view.

Another possibility might be to have a certain cohesion in military material. Maybe they don’t want a Ukrainian army with 20 different types of assault tanks which have all a different way of working and require a different type of training + logistical support. SO it looks like it will be Leopards instead of Abrams Thanks.   

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukr...023-01-23/